The most troubling aspect of this is the proposal for fees. PV was asked about this, and this was the answer
ISC has strong ties to vendors who run bind9, due to the vendor-funded project to write bind9 from scratch. however, ISC's contacts to vendors (or to the different parts of some of the same vendors) who run bind4 and bind8 are at the personal, 1-on-1 engineering level. it's now desirable to formalize and deepen the ties between ISC and those vendors or parts of vendors who are responsible for shipping BIND, and patches to BIND, as part of their products.
To me that just doesn't make sense, particularly when later in the interview he says that he can't comment on the size of fees, but does suggest that there will be a scale of fees (as opposed to, say, a nominal flat rate). Even more strange is his suggestion that the fee can be waived for non-profit members when considered in the light of the reason for fees being to "deepen and formalize" the relationships.
I feel that this whole mailing list looks like an attempt to generate a revenue stream through what boils down to blackmail: "if you do not pay us you will not get timely information about the security holes in BIND."
This will (inevitably) lead to a code split, will be a very good thing: having practically the whole internet run DNS resolver (irrespective of how good it is) is dangerous.
And also excluding the actual first one, which was in the UK connecting Birmingham airport to the city centre. This was in 1984 (and it is now closed).
Our addressbook (by default) contains the names of all the Employees as well as several distribution lists for various projects. Outlook (previous to 2000 I guess) would just roll over and die with that much data.
Sorry, you (not Outlook) has a problem. Last enterprise I worked in had > 100k users (and lots of distribution lists) and Exchange Client and Outlook had no problem with the GAL size.
Ditto Public folders.
Re:Simply Bad System Administration
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 2
Are there any security controls to keep unauthorized access from happening to the registry? Can you lock down individual hives or even the whole thing with specific access?
All Amazon know about this e-mail address is that somebody used it to order some books. Now somebody, who seems to know nothing about the book ordering history, is trying to get the password for the account.
Would this not strike you as just a little bit suspicious?
Imaging the alternative scenario:
Husband and wife have split up, with intense bitterness.
Husband and wife shared the e-mail account.
Husband tries to get into wife's Amazon account to order 500 hundred copies of "Why I hate you bitch." in the wife's name.
Now imagine the shit that would be heaped on Amazon if this happened.
The whole point of the Amazon account is that all the user information is stored there (including preferences on mailings). There is absolutely no way that they should change it without him satifying some basic security check. Should he be able to change it so that he opted the amazon account into a mailing list.
Was it really to much effort to ask her "Darling, what was the title of one of the most recent books you've ordererd from amazon?"
There were so many posts here that simply repeated what others posted
This can be a good or a bad thing depending on context. Sometimes repetition adds emphasis - a protest march is simply a group of people all doing the same thing - surely it wouldn't be better is only one person marched?
The repetition here should, at the risk of labouring the point, get the message home to the editors of/. that readers are getting a little fed up with provocative but unchecked articles being pumped out. It is, after all, "News" and not "Scandal" on the masthead.
1 million crystals in Gruen's diamond film can fit inside the crystal produced by conventional methods
Which means that the crystals are a million times SMALLER, not denser.
Well, a million times smaller by volume, but a hundred times smaller by linear measure, which is a more rational measure of this sort of thing. For example one of the things that is interesting for this sort of stuff is flatness, which is a (very crudely) related to the size (and size distribution) of the crystals.
Of course "One hundred times..." doesn't sound as good as "one million times...".
Corporations are people, for almost all legal considerations.
This happens to be one of the cases where they aren't considered people. People invent and assign to a corporation. A corporation can not, under current law, be an inventor.
Apparently (this is form the MS trial where the MS legal team submitted in WP format) the word count in Word is not accurate. When the case depends on a brief being less than X words, suddenly having an accurate word cound is of overwhelming importance.
You are confusing innovation with refinement. Taking the concrete example (at random) the innovation (i.e. the invnetion itself) with refinements of the invention. Movable Type - again this was the invention - the laser printer is, as you say, the development.
Another example - plumbing.
Coffee was the caffinated beverage, not the bean (obviously).
Oh, and the first cathode ray was generated by Sir William Crookes, a British physicist. The cathode ray tube was invented by Karl Braun (a pre-revolutionary Russian - although he was working in Germany at the time). The guy who I think you are talking about is Philo Taylor Farnsworth, who invented an eletronic television system in 1928. Or Vladimir Kosma Zworykin, who showed a "kinescope" at the national convention of radio engineers in 1928. But this is just a refinement of the innovation of signal -> picture on a CRT, credit for which probably goes to Boris Rosing (another pre-revolutionary Russian, working in Russia) and Zworykin's mentor.
You are talking nonsense about currency - coins were widely accepted from the Romans onwards. Banknotes originated in the 14th century.
The point about the qwerty keyboard also misses the mark - qwerty wasn't the first keyboard, it is a refinement of it.
But, until someone shows me an innovation I use everyday that came from a society without strong protection for corporations and without protection of any kind on intellectual property (just one--that's all I want), I say we got a pretty good system.
Artificial Satellites - First done by the former Soviet Union.
Movable Type - First done in feudal systems (Europe or China - take your pick)
Banking - Feudal Italy.
Time measurement - Egyptian or earlier
Concrete - Roman
Glass - dunno, but a long time ago
Coffee - Abyssinia about 850AD
If you aren't using any of these daily then you are living in a hole in the ground.
Could you give some examples of where this has happend? The only times I can think of that a non-obvious-troll post has been moded down are when they are either a) factualy wrong or b) illerate flames
It happened to me - I posted at +2 and the post was modded down as being overrated. Why? All the post said was that stories were being changed after being posted (admittedly it was only a few typos but once it's released than that's it. If they are going to change it say so.)
Was it wrong? No. Was it illiterate? No. Did it (indirectly) criticise/.? Yes. Not the first time I'd seen it either.
Re:The ISO 9000 compliant version is "Celsius 283"
on
Fahrenheit 451
·
· Score: 1
Re:I don't understand the question.
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 2
. Make every possible first move for White. For each of those cases, make each possible first move for Black. For each of those cases, make each possible second move for White. And so on. Every game must end in White winning, Black winning, or a stalemate...Out of all those games, find the game in which White wins after the fewest moves. Call this WW. Find the game in which Black wins after the fewest moves. Call this BW. Find the game in which a stalemate is produced in the fewest moves. Call it SM. Let N(g) be the number of moves to conclude the game g.
Sorry, this analysis is wrong. The number of moves is irrelevant. It's hard to explain without diagrams, but here goes. Suppose that 30 moves into the game Black had twenty different possible moves available. By searching the tree exhaustively he finds that 18 of these lead to a white win in 10 moves or less, one leads to a black win in at least 25 moves, and one leads to stalemate in next move.
In this case we have N(WW) lt N(BW) and N(WW) gt N(SM) so according to your analysis the results is a stalemate, but actually Black wins if he makes the right move.
Chess, however, is unsolvable. The search tree for chess has more nodes than there are atoms of the universe.
Strangely, this isn't the case. I think that chess is solvable. The depth of the tree alone does not make it unsolvable. It does make it hard to find the solution (probably impossible for all intents and purposes) but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Firstly the crucial case was heard in 1911. (Although the order to dissolve the trust - actually a deal with the railroad owners - was made in 1892)
In fact, consumers didn't benefit from the Standard breakup.
Considering that the charge they were found guilty of was price fixing, this statement is a little odd. The whole set up of Standard Oil was to use its monopoly in oil (90%+) to gain a stranglehold on the railways which prevented his competitors from being able to sustain margins.
Do not be mislead by the price of oil - the key in the price kerosene (in 1890 few people had cars). To quote from the Atlantic Monthly of 1881
To-day, in every part of the United States, people who burn kerosene are paying the Standard Oil Company a tax on every gallon amounting to several times its original cost to that concern.
I'd advise you get the facts straight before talking about the case.
Incidently, The Atlantic Monthly article is a good read, mainly because something 119 years old is still so relevent. Here is the closing paragraph
In less than the ordinary span of a life-time, our railroads have brought upon us the worst labor disturbance, the greatest of monopolies, and the most formidable combination of money and brains that ever overshadowed a state. The time has come to face the fact that the forces of capital and industry have outgrown the forces of our government. The corporation and the trades-union have forgotten that they are the creatures of the state. Our strong men are engaged in a headlong fight for fortune, power, precedence, success. Americans as they are, they ride over the people like Juggernaut to gain their ends. The moralists have preached to them since the world began, and have failed. The common people, the nation, must take them in hand. The people can be successful only when they are right. When monopolies succeed, the people fail; when a rich criminal escapes justice, the people are punished; when a legislature is bribed, the people are cheated. There is nobody richer than Vanderbilt except the body of citizens; no corporation more powerful than the transcontinental railroad except the corporate sovereign at Washington. The nation is the engine of the people. They must use it for their industrial life, as they used it in 1861 for their political life. The States have failed. The United States must succeed, or the people will perish.
If nothing else, it may help get the Microsoft thing into perspective.
it's the way slashdot avoids legal responsibility for monitoring posts and insisting that they conform to law.
Hmm. Seems they want to have their cake and eat it too - they appear to want to a) avoid liability by saying "that post is the posters" and b) be able to publish them en-masse. Sorry guys, this seems wrong.
Is the book right? In my view no. I realise that this may be redundant but firstly I'm a Brit so I don't have the emotional baggage that a lot of people posting here seem to have, and secondly I think that there will be a counting of voices going on at some point ("most people thought it was bad/good").
The reasons are twofold: no real effort was made to contact contributers - news on the front page about this three months ago ("We're going to publish a book about `Hellmouth`"), mass e-mailing. Anything realistic in fact. This needed to be done because those posts were not yours - you are entitled to publish them on your web site and that is all. Secondly the posts in the book are unattributed - this was a major error of judgement.
There is also the unsubstantiated nature of the claims - which is compounded by publishing them unattibuted. This devalues the book so much: imagine if the "Diary of Anne Frank" was called "The Diary of someone". It removes a lot of the books credibility.
Think about if, for example, a book on Perl had been published based on the contents on Slashdot's archives, and none of the posts were attibuted: there would have been, justifiably, outrage (well, more unanimous outrage). Because there may be good reasons for this book to be published does not, and cannot, justify the actions: two wrongs do not make a right.
What I would like to see is some statement by Slashdot clarifying the position - at the moment we are in a bit of a limbo where nobody knows under what conditions they are posting. I'm not bothered one way or another, but others are, and this should be clarified, and soon.
A short extract from the web page CAN I SUE SOMEONE WHO SAYS OR WRITES SOMETHING DEFAMATORY ABOUT ME?
In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false.
That is the crucial difference between the US and the UK for non-public figures. In the US you have to prove that it was false, in the UK the other party has to prove that it was true.
This seems to be the same thing, but it is very different. Suppose the debatable point was "You were not in Paris last Saturday" (believe it or not, a recent notorious case depended on this very point). For you to prove that is false (i.e. that you were in Paris) is easy: Plane tickets, hotel receipts, credit cards, subway tickets, etc. For the defendent to prove that you weren't in Paris is very difficult (as proving a negative often is).
Lasers are useful for cooling atoms, but they have absolutely no use when it comes to cooling processors, or anything else large enough to be visible for that matter.
Not so (I was surprised as well). At Los Alamos they have used optical refigeration to cool a lump of Ytterbium (4mm x 4mm x 7mm - so it is a visible lump) by 0.3K (not to, by). Details here. Only one laser required too. But yes, the story was clueless.
I don't see how changing the libel laws will change anything.
There are several problems with libel laws as they stand.
1.) The burden of proof (as the article said) is on the defendant. This is a bad thing. To take a recent example The Sunday Times lost a libel case recent when they rubbished a book claiming Trimble was a member of a secret conspiracy group called "The Crucible". Why did they lose? Well, how can you prove that someone isn't a member of a secret consiracy group?
2.) The costs are insane. In the Godfrey case he got 15kGBP in damages - the lawyers got an estimated 500kGBP in fees. This also gives some insight as to why the lawyers aren't keen on changing them:(
3.) The damages are based on whether something is likely to damage your reputation - not by how much your repuation has been damaged.
All in all not a good situation. In the US I believe there is a requirement to show malice before it can be considered libel - in the UK the most innoucous statement can be considered libellous if it is not factually correct even if the person making the statement believes it to be true. Truth is not a surefire defence either - more accurate would be "Truth that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and which was not published with the intent to reduce a persons reputation."
All sorts of old out of print books that I would almost dare you to find a printed version of one of them in any bookstore
I think you mean out of copyright books. As Jane Austen, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Thomas Paine, Plato, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexander Pope, Thackeray, Henry Thoreau, Tolstoy, Trollope , Mark Twain, and Emile Zola - to name but a few -are all still very much available from my local bookstore.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel that this whole mailing list looks like an attempt to generate a revenue stream through what boils down to blackmail: "if you do not pay us you will not get timely information about the security holes in BIND."
This will (inevitably) lead to a code split, will be a very good thing: having practically the whole internet run DNS resolver (irrespective of how good it is) is dangerous.
Ho hum, another non-story.
See the LFA web site for details on the high quality work the stiff is providing.
Sorry, you (not Outlook) has a problem. Last enterprise I worked in had > 100k users (and lots of distribution lists) and Exchange Client and Outlook had no problem with the GAL size. Ditto Public folders.
Yes, you can lock down any key in the registry.
All Amazon know about this e-mail address is that somebody used it to order some books. Now somebody, who seems to know nothing about the book ordering history, is trying to get the password for the account.
Would this not strike you as just a little bit suspicious?
Imaging the alternative scenario:
Husband and wife shared the e-mail account.
Husband tries to get into wife's Amazon account to order 500 hundred copies of "Why I hate you bitch." in the wife's name.
Now imagine the shit that would be heaped on Amazon if this happened.
The whole point of the Amazon account is that all the user information is stored there (including preferences on mailings). There is absolutely no way that they should change it without him satifying some basic security check. Should he be able to change it so that he opted the amazon account into a mailing list.
Was it really to much effort to ask her "Darling, what was the title of one of the most recent books you've ordererd from amazon?"
This can be a good or a bad thing depending on context. Sometimes repetition adds emphasis - a protest march is simply a group of people all doing the same thing - surely it wouldn't be better is only one person marched?
The repetition here should, at the risk of labouring the point, get the message home to the editors of /. that readers are getting a little fed up with provocative but unchecked articles being pumped out. It is, after all, "News" and not "Scandal" on the masthead.
Which means that the crystals are a million times SMALLER, not denser.
Well, a million times smaller by volume, but a hundred times smaller by linear measure, which is a more rational measure of this sort of thing. For example one of the things that is interesting for this sort of stuff is flatness, which is a (very crudely) related to the size (and size distribution) of the crystals.
Of course "One hundred times..." doesn't sound as good as "one million times...".
This happens to be one of the cases where they aren't considered people. People invent and assign to a corporation. A corporation can not, under current law, be an inventor.
Apparently (this is form the MS trial where the MS legal team submitted in WP format) the word count in Word is not accurate. When the case depends on a brief being less than X words, suddenly having an accurate word cound is of overwhelming importance.
Another example - plumbing.
Coffee was the caffinated beverage, not the bean (obviously).
Oh, and the first cathode ray was generated by Sir William Crookes, a British physicist. The cathode ray tube was invented by Karl Braun (a pre-revolutionary Russian - although he was working in Germany at the time). The guy who I think you are talking about is Philo Taylor Farnsworth, who invented an eletronic television system in 1928. Or Vladimir Kosma Zworykin, who showed a "kinescope" at the national convention of radio engineers in 1928. But this is just a refinement of the innovation of signal -> picture on a CRT, credit for which probably goes to Boris Rosing (another pre-revolutionary Russian, working in Russia) and Zworykin's mentor.
You are talking nonsense about currency - coins were widely accepted from the Romans onwards. Banknotes originated in the 14th century.
The point about the qwerty keyboard also misses the mark - qwerty wasn't the first keyboard, it is a refinement of it.
If you aren't using any of these daily then you are living in a hole in the ground.
And before that, in "Stand on Zanzibar", John Brunner had mono-filaments too.
It happened to me - I posted at +2 and the post was modded down as being overrated. Why? All the post said was that stories were being changed after being posted (admittedly it was only a few typos but once it's released than that's it. If they are going to change it say so.)
Was it wrong? No. Was it illiterate? No. Did it (indirectly) criticise /.? Yes. Not the first time I'd seen it either.
You mean 581K
The point is, of course, that initially the posts were not going to be given credit, so what you were intending to do was not "just fine."
This point is kinda irrelevant, though. We've decided that publishing this book without asking for permission wouldn't be the right thing to do.
I'm glad you see the difference between ethical and legal - it is certainly commendable.
Very odd - It was definitely there. Strange that.
Sorry, this analysis is wrong. The number of moves is irrelevant. It's hard to explain without diagrams, but here goes. Suppose that 30 moves into the game Black had twenty different possible moves available. By searching the tree exhaustively he finds that 18 of these lead to a white win in 10 moves or less, one leads to a black win in at least 25 moves, and one leads to stalemate in next move.
In this case we have N(WW) lt N(BW) and N(WW) gt N(SM) so according to your analysis the results is a stalemate, but actually Black wins if he makes the right move.
Strangely, this isn't the case. I think that chess is solvable. The depth of the tree alone does not make it unsolvable. It does make it hard to find the solution (probably impossible for all intents and purposes) but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Firstly the crucial case was heard in 1911. (Although the order to dissolve the trust - actually a deal with the railroad owners - was made in 1892)
In fact, consumers didn't benefit from the Standard breakup.
Considering that the charge they were found guilty of was price fixing, this statement is a little odd. The whole set up of Standard Oil was to use its monopoly in oil (90%+) to gain a stranglehold on the railways which prevented his competitors from being able to sustain margins.
Do not be mislead by the price of oil - the key in the price kerosene (in 1890 few people had cars). To quote from the Atlantic Monthly of 1881
I'd advise you get the facts straight before talking about the case.Incidently, The Atlantic Monthly article is a good read, mainly because something 119 years old is still so relevent. Here is the closing paragraph
If nothing else, it may help get the Microsoft thing into perspective.
Hmm. Seems they want to have their cake and eat it too - they appear to want to a) avoid liability by saying "that post is the posters" and b) be able to publish them en-masse. Sorry guys, this seems wrong.
Is the book right? In my view no. I realise that this may be redundant but firstly I'm a Brit so I don't have the emotional baggage that a lot of people posting here seem to have, and secondly I think that there will be a counting of voices going on at some point ("most people thought it was bad/good").
The reasons are twofold: no real effort was made to contact contributers - news on the front page about this three months ago ("We're going to publish a book about `Hellmouth`"), mass e-mailing. Anything realistic in fact. This needed to be done because those posts were not yours - you are entitled to publish them on your web site and that is all. Secondly the posts in the book are unattributed - this was a major error of judgement.
There is also the unsubstantiated nature of the claims - which is compounded by publishing them unattibuted. This devalues the book so much: imagine if the "Diary of Anne Frank" was called "The Diary of someone". It removes a lot of the books credibility.
Think about if, for example, a book on Perl had been published based on the contents on Slashdot's archives, and none of the posts were attibuted: there would have been, justifiably, outrage (well, more unanimous outrage). Because there may be good reasons for this book to be published does not, and cannot, justify the actions: two wrongs do not make a right.
What I would like to see is some statement by Slashdot clarifying the position - at the moment we are in a bit of a limbo where nobody knows under what conditions they are posting. I'm not bothered one way or another, but others are, and this should be clarified, and soon.
In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false.
That is the crucial difference between the US and the UK for non-public figures. In the US you have to prove that it was false, in the UK the other party has to prove that it was true.
This seems to be the same thing, but it is very different. Suppose the debatable point was "You were not in Paris last Saturday" (believe it or not, a recent notorious case depended on this very point). For you to prove that is false (i.e. that you were in Paris) is easy: Plane tickets, hotel receipts, credit cards, subway tickets, etc. For the defendent to prove that you weren't in Paris is very difficult (as proving a negative often is).
Not so (I was surprised as well). At Los Alamos they have used optical refigeration to cool a lump of Ytterbium (4mm x 4mm x 7mm - so it is a visible lump) by 0.3K (not to, by). Details here. Only one laser required too. But yes, the story was clueless.
There are several problems with libel laws as they stand.
1.) The burden of proof (as the article said) is on the defendant. This is a bad thing. To take a recent example The Sunday Times lost a libel case recent when they rubbished a book claiming Trimble was a member of a secret conspiracy group called "The Crucible". Why did they lose? Well, how can you prove that someone isn't a member of a secret consiracy group?
2.) The costs are insane. In the Godfrey case he got 15kGBP in damages - the lawyers got an estimated 500kGBP in fees. This also gives some insight as to why the lawyers aren't keen on changing them :(
3.) The damages are based on whether something is likely to damage your reputation - not by how much your repuation has been damaged.
All in all not a good situation. In the US I believe there is a requirement to show malice before it can be considered libel - in the UK the most innoucous statement can be considered libellous if it is not factually correct even if the person making the statement believes it to be true. Truth is not a surefire defence either - more accurate would be "Truth that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and which was not published with the intent to reduce a persons reputation."
I think you mean out of copyright books. As Jane Austen, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Thomas Paine, Plato, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexander Pope, Thackeray, Henry Thoreau, Tolstoy, Trollope , Mark Twain, and Emile Zola - to name but a few -are all still very much available from my local bookstore.